XVI. these fatal contentions, at the same time re- BOOK pealed, there is no doubt but a compensation to the Company would have been immediately 1774. voted, the honor of government would have been maintained, and a sure foundation laid for a permanent reconciliation. But how rarely are the resolutions adopted in anger founded in wisdom! The idea of this repeal was suggested in the house of commons, but repressed with ineffable disdain, and the bill passed both houses without a division. While it was yet pending, a petition from the natives of America resident in London was unavailingly presented to the house of commons, stating "the deep sorrow with which they understood that this honorable house was about to pass a bill to punish, with unexampled rigour, the town of Boston for a trespass committed by some persons unknown upon the property of the East-India Company, without the said town's being apprized of any accusation brought against them, or being permitted to hear the evidence or make their defence. Your petitioners say they conceive such proceedings to be directly repugnant to every principle of law and justice, and that under such a precedent no man or body of men in America could enjoy a moment's security. Your petitioners conceive that there is not an instance,. even in the most arbitrary times, in which a XVI. BOOK city was punished by parliamentary authority, without being heard, for a civil offence not 1774. committed within their jurisdiction, and without redress having been sought at common law; and they conclude with the aphorism, that the attachment of America cannot survive the justice of Britain." Very soon after this a second bill was introduced by the minister, for the better regulating the government of the province of Massachusetts Bay. By this bill the charter of the province was entirely subverted, and the nomination of the counsellors, judges, and magistrates of all kinds, including sheriffs, was vested in the crown, and all these officers made removable at PLEASURE. This bill the minister affirmed to be absolutely necessary, for preventing the rest of the colonies from being tainted by the seditious example of Massachusetts Bay. The opposition now seemed to rise into some degree of firmness and vigor. It was asked, whether the colonies already regulated nearest to the manner proposed by this bill were more submissive to the right of taxation than Massachusetts ? It was asserted that the disorder lay much deeper than in any diversities that subsisted in the colonial forms of government; that the people throughout the whole extent of that vast continent were universally dissatisfied, and the uneasiness and resistance were no less in the royal governments than in any other. By an BOOK invasion of the charter, the cause of Massachusetts XVI. will be made the common cause of all the colo- 1774. nies, who have no other or better security for the continuance of their own." The virtuous Dowdeswell, who combined the inflexibility of a Shippen with the liberality and generosity of a Stanhope, called upon the house to "recollect that the province of Massachusetts had flourished for fourscore years under their old and democratic charter. It was granted in the reign of king William, and breathed a spirit of liberty unknown to modern times. They have increased their possessions and improved their lands to an unexpected and unexampled pitch, and we have reaped the benefit of their labor;—yet you are now, said this true patriot, going to destroy that very charter which has subsisted to the mutual advantage of both this country and America. The regulations enacted by the bill in question were, he affirmed, so bad, that it would be infinitely better to let matters take their course, than attempt the correction of any irregularities by so inadequate and at the same time so violent a remedy. He conjured the house to preserve temper and moderation in their proceedings, and to avoid such harsh and odious exertions of their authority." The flagrant injustice of divesting a people of their chartered rights, without suf BOOK fering them so much as to be heard in their own XVI. behalf, being forcibly and repeatedly urged, lord 1774. North in hesitating accents declared, "that it rested upon the ground of an over-ruling political necessity. If," said he, "it does not stand upon that ground, it stands upon nothing." But Mr. Jenkinson in bold and lofty language avowed as a fixed and universal axiom of government, "that in matters of high political regulation no obligation to hear the parties existed; and that justice was not violated in the present instance by the refusal of evidence."-" I see," said colonel Barré with his usual ardor, "nothing in these measures but inhumanity, injustice, and wickedness, and I fear that the avenging hand of Heaven will fall heavy upon this country." The bill was finally carried by a prodigious majority of 239 against 64 voices, May 2, 1774.---In the house of lords it did not pass without the severest strictures; the final division on the general question was 92 to 20, and an animated and excellent protest against it was signed by eleven peers, amongst whom were the dukes of Richmond and Portland, and the marquis of Rockingham. "Before the rights of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, which they derive from their charter, are taken away, the definite legal offence by which a forfeiture of that charter is incurred," say their lordships, "ought to have been clearly XVI. stated, and the parties heard in their own de- BOOK fence; and the mere celerity of a decision against it will not reconcile the minds of the people to 1774. that mode of government which is to be established upon its ruins. On the general allegations of a declaratory preamble, the rights of any public body may be taken away, and any visionary scheme of government substituted in their place. By this bill, the governor and council are invested with dangerous powers, unknown to the British constitution, and with which the king himself is not intrusted. By the appointment and removal of the sheriff at pleasure, they have the means of returning such juries as may best suit with the gratification of their passions and interests; the life, liberty, and property of the subject are put into their hands without controul. The weak, injudicious, and inconsistent measures of the ministry have given new force to the distractions of America, which on the repeal of the Stamp Act were subsiding,-have revived dangerous questions, and gradually estranged the affections of the colonies from the mother country. To render the colonies permanently advantageous, they must be SATISFIED WITH THEIR CONDITION. That satisfaction there is no chance of restoring, but by recurring to the principles on which the repeal of the Stamp Act was founded." |